Facts Do Not Persuade

Yes, maybe a buffalo stepped on the thermometer. But the temperature was SOMETHING and just because you don’t trust your thermometer doesn’t mean the temperature is unknowable.

And I found the glorification of free speech at the end troubling. Is free speech good? Yes. Is it the greatest good? Not at all. To say we shouldn’t strive to know anything concretely because we might suppress free speech seems like sheer folly.

There's centuries of deliberation about what knowledge is, how we can obtain such knowledge and what its value is. Of course, the author ignores all of that and tries to "reinvent the wheel", badly.

Apart from the (true, but not very original) observations that a) you can easily mislead with decontextualised facts, b) trust is necessary in a world where you can't verify everything yourself and c) people are not necessarily persuaded by facts, the article doesn't seem to have much content. He also completely lost me when it seems he's trying to make a case for the existence of UFOs. In an article that describes the importance of trust, I find it a bit ironic that he's basically coming off as a crank.

But more importantly, this article has a decidedly anti-science vibe. And while it is important to be careful with science and understand its flaws and limitations, historically it has again and again shown to be the best tool for advancing our understanding of the world.

Really? Got links to more info? It amuses me that the blogger voices concerns over pop scientists omitting context from their claims, and then fails to include context for his own.

One of the hallmarks of critical thinking is being able to move past black-and-white reasoning. Critical thinking entails comprehension of the ambiguity and gray area present within most debates. Any individual who feels as though there exist ideas which are irrefutable even in the face of many other similarly viable explanations is clearly not thinking rationally.

I’m sure radar has indeed recorded objects in the air going very fast and turning rapidly, but as mentioned in the article, there is likely additional context which has been omitted. Thus, I don’t feel any need to fact check this individual, as there is no need to verify such a vague claim which lacks almost any context whatsoever. Hopefully both author and reader understand that claims made without context or citations are not meant to be interpreted as authoritative, definitive examples.